News from gouvernor reunion ???

Status
Not open for further replies.

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Tawnos said:
As I said, it's getting late for an impasse. If the league wants to start in October, ideally they would have declared an impasse at the beginning of this month... if an impasse is declared, the NLRB isn't going to get to their case in at least a month, probably more. Then they're gonna take months to review this as one of many cases that are on their docket at any given moment. 6 months, for a case this size, would be where you would start from. They could try to get it done in less, but the replacement option for next season is actually slipping through the owners fingers whether they wanted to do it or not.

Bettman made a big mistake with this one, probably the first negotiation tactical mistake he's made. He spoke prematurely and then waited too long to try to bring it to a head.


You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it true.

The league DOES NOT NEED prior approval from the NLRB to declare an impasse and use replacements. In fact it is the PA who would eventually file with the NLRB, not the league.

The league can declare an impasse whenever it wants, impose a CBA, and open up. It's up to the PA to then vote to strike and file a complaint with the NLRB. The league is free to continue to play under the imposed CBA until the NLRB makes a ruling.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Egil said:
Thats not what Bettman said, thats what the reporter said.

Typical Sportsnet. They get everything wrong lately, are always using incorrect headlines, etc. It's become so common, I really think it's intentional.

gc2005 said:
How 'come the owners aren't greedy in your universe? They're the ones whining about wanting / needing more money. There's a workable framework on the table, but the owners might lock 'em out another year for what? For a few extra bucks. Greed. And to stick it to the greedy players. Blah.

I'm still amazed people don't get this. Here's why one side is seen as greedy, the other not:

Players: Spend: $0 Profit: approx $1.4 billion.
Owners: Spend: $2.4 billion. Profit: $300 million loss.

One side takes home $1.4 billion after investing nothing, the other has to write a cheque. Got it?
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
Top Shelf said:
FAN590 is reporting that Bettman has just said that the NHL will not start on time if a CBA is not in place by Sept/Oct.

The FAN590 is speculating that the replacement player option may be off the table.
i heard that driving home - somebody's coming to their senses -
 

BLONG7

Registered User
Oct 30, 2002
35,621
21,958
Nova Scotia
Visit site
PecaFan said:
Typical Sportsnet. They get everything wrong lately, are always using incorrect headlines, etc. It's become so common, I really think it's intentional.



I'm still amazed people don't get this. Here's why one side is seen as greedy, the other not:

Players: Spend: $0 Profit: approx $1.4 billion.
Owners: Spend: $2.4 billion. Profit: $300 million loss.

One side takes home $1.4 billion after investing nothing, the other has to write a cheque. Got it?
Bang on!!! :clap:
 

handtrick

Registered User
Sep 18, 2004
3,217
13
Chattanooga, TN
Seems to me this backing off of the replacement players may be a bone to the big market teams to swallow a meaningful dose of revenue sharing.....
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
handtrick said:
Seems to me this backing off of the replacement players may be a bone to the big market teams to swallow a meaningful dose of revenue sharing.....

I must admit to wondering that too.

Lets says

Team T has lots of revenue but doesn't want to share and is very opposed to replacements.

Bettman says to Team T "We need more revenue sharing to get the season underway with a CBA the players will agree with. If we can't get a proper revenue sharing deal between the owners we will have to go the replacement route. You choose, what do you want least, replacements or revenue sharing?"
 

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
BLONG7 said:
Bang on!!! :clap:

Players taking physical risks, playing the games, advancing the team to the playoffs so owner makes bank..creating exitment to draw fans and revenue..... 90%(there are some players who don't show up every night ;) )

Owners efforts on the ice... 1% (gotta account for Mario ;) )


hence why the players should getting most of the money.....the notion that the players invest nothing is udder horse ****.... not to say the owners don't deserve to break even... but believing that the players don't invest anything into the game is like believing the old CBA was good.. :madfire:
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
PecaFan said:
Typical Sportsnet. They get everything wrong lately, are always using incorrect headlines, etc. It's become so common, I really think it's intentional.



I'm still amazed people don't get this. Here's why one side is seen as greedy, the other not:

Players: Spend: $0 Profit: approx $1.4 billion.
Owners: Spend: $2.4 billion. Profit: $300 million loss.

One side takes home $1.4 billion after investing nothing, the other has to write a cheque. Got it?
actually, its more like this

fans spend: $2.4billion
owners spend: 300m

the owners dont spend 2.4billion of their own money, it comes from the fans.

Why should we care if these guys spend 300m on toys. Especially when you look at it from the point of view they could have agreed to something already and reduced that loss to an immediate profit.

The have won the war, it has been won since 2004, they are now being greedy if they are holding out for more than a hard cap and linkage.

dr
 

King_Brown

Guest
Gary Bettman pretty much acknowledged there is deal there, but they need to work out the dollars now, same thing he said back in December, but Bobby was too dumb.

I dont understand though, is there linkage involved finally? If so I think they should jump on it right now since the cap will go down big time after the first season.
 

Hunter74

Registered User
Sep 21, 2004
1,045
15
DR said:
actually, its more like this

fans spend: $2.4billion
owners spend: 300m

the owners dont spend 2.4billion of their own money, it comes from the fans.

Why should we care if these guys spend 300m on toys. Especially when you look at it from the point of view they could have agreed to something already and reduced that loss to an immediate profit.

Why should we care if the PA's average salary drops from $1.8 to $1.3mil per year?
How many of you will make that much money in your life time??
Why b/c they risk getting hurt?
People get into car accidents all the time and end up being disabled for life but you will hardly ever see settlemts like that, especially in Canada.

Why are the players entitled to make more money than the industry can afford?

I think 54% of the industries revenue going to the players big fat pocket is very fair imho.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
kdb209 said:
The league can declare an impasse whenever it wants, impose a CBA, and open up. It's up to the PA to then vote to strike and file a complaint with the NLRB. The league is free to continue to play under the imposed CBA until the NLRB makes a ruling.

:rolleyes:

Sorry for the misspeak.

Like the NHLPA wouldn't file a complaint. And once they filed a complaint, the NLRB would probably file an injunction until they review the matter. The end result is exactly the same, the NHL cannot *successfully* declare an impasse without the NLRB. It's not actually an injunction, but once the NHLPA files the bad faith complaint, which they definitely would, then the NHL can't implement it's deal without the result the NLRB hands down. Read the rest of that link further up, it explains all of that too.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Tawnos said:
:rolleyes:

Sorry for the misspeak.

Like the NHLPA wouldn't file a complaint. And once they filed a complaint, the NLRB would probably file an injunction until they review the matter. The end result is exactly the same, the NHL cannot *successfully* declare an impasse without the NLRB. It's not actually an injunction, but once the NHLPA files the bad faith complaint, which they definitely would, then the NHL can't implement it's deal without the result the NLRB hands down. Read the rest of that link further up, it explains all of that too.

Actually, I don't think the NLRB would necessarily grant a preliminary injunction. The NLRB is under no obligation to grant an injunction while adjudicating the matter.

The circumstances here are much different than MLB in 1995 - where the injunction was granted basically because MLB F***ed up.

MLB had not declared an impasse (actually they had in December '94 but rescinded the declaration in February '95) and still unilaterally made changes in Free Agency and Arbitration. The NLRB ruled that these changes touched upon mandatory subjects of collective bargaining and could not be changed without a declaration of impasse and in doing so MLB had comitted an unfair labor practice.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/uscircs/2nd/956048.html

The Players Association thereupon filed a new unfair labor practice charge, and the General Counsel issued a complaint alleging, inter alia , that the Clubs and the PRC had violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the NLRA by unilaterally eliminating, before an impasse had been reached, competitive bidding for the services of free agents, the anti-collusion provision, and salary arbitration for certain reserved players. The NLRB found that these matters were related to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and were therefore mandatory subjects for collective bargaining. It then authorized its General Counsel to seek an injunction under NLRA §10(j). On March 27, the NLRB Regional Director filed a petition seeking a temporary injunction restraining the alleged unfair labor practices.

The district court agreed that the NLRB had reasonable cause to conclude that free agency and salary arbitration were mandatory subjects of bargaining and that the Clubs' unilateral actions constituted an unfair labor practice. The district court also concluded that injunctive relief was warranted. This appeal followed. We denied a stay on April 4.

The NLRB will only request an injunction if it has reasonable cause to beleive that an unfair labor practice has occured and that the plaintiff would likely win on it's complaint and it felt that the normal procedure would erode the effectiveness of any remedy it would hand down at the conclusion of a lengthy hearing.

In the case of MLB there was a determination of failing to negotiate mandatory subjects which gave reasonable cause for an unfair labor charge. I'm sure the NHL has learned from MLB's mistakes. I haven't seen any bad faith charges against the NHL that would qualify as reasonable cause for a preliminary injunction, although I'm sure the PA will argue otherwise.

Also consider that the makeup of the NLRB is considerably different (and more Republican) than in '95.

Of course, all of this seems moot now, since the league seems to be backing away from any replacement player scenerios, making an impasse declaration unlikely.

I'll add some more. I looked around to see if I could find how frequently preliminary injunctions are issued in cases before the NLRB - in what percentage of NLRB complaints are injunctions (Section 10(j) relief) asked for and granted. The numbers are not that promising for the PA.

From March 3, 1998 through January 15, 2001 359 cases were forwarded to the NLRB's General Counsels Office with recommendation for in injunction.

359 Total Cases
191 Cases General Counsel sought authorization from NLRB (53%)
164 Cases Authorized by NLRB to seek injunction (46%)
64 Cases Resolved by Court decision (18%)
46 Cases Injunctions granted (13%)

Only 13% of all complaints sent to the NLRB from their regional offices with recommendations for an injunction actually had an injunction granted.

http://www.lawmemo.com/nlrb/gc01-03.htm

II. Cases Submitted and Authorized in General

During the period covered by this report, Regional Offices submitted 359 cases with a recommendation regarding Section 10(j) relief to the Injunction Litigation Branch of the Division of Advice.[5] The General Counsel's Office sought Section 10(j) authorization from the Board in 191 cases, a "request percentage" of 53%, as compared to 44% during the prior reporting period. Of these cases, the Board authorized Section 10(j) proceedings in 164 cases, an "authorization rate" of 86%.[6] The Board authorization rate for the 1998 reporting period was 93%.

...

As Appendix A shows, of the 164 cases authorized by the Board, 134 have been pursued to a conclusion at this time.[7] Of these cases, 70 were resolved by a successful settlement, either before or after a petition was filed in court. The proportion of authorized and pursued cases adjusted by settlement, 52%, is consistent with prior 10(j) reporting periods, including the settlement adjustment of 49% during the prior reporting period.

The remaining 64 cases were resolved by court decision, with injunctions granted in whole or substantial part in 46 cases. Thus, of these litigated cases, we were successful in 72% of the cases; this compares well to the litigation success rate of 77% during the 1998 reporting period. All together, we obtained a successful settlement or favorable court decision in 116 cases, a "success rate" of 87% of the cases pursued to a conclusion. This success rate is virtually identical with the 89%, 88% and 87% success rates of General Counsels Collyer, Feinstein and Lubbers, respectively.
 
Last edited:

Ola

Registered User
Apr 10, 2004
34,597
11,595
Sweden
No replacement players huh? Big suprise... :)

Its incredible that it took so long to write that option off. Just the fact that some owners actually were in favor of it just shows how insane little they actually now about the game.

Replacement players never ever would have worked. It would have been a extreme failure. I am really suprised media have not picked the talk about replacement players apart, are they just as stuipid?
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
Mr.Hunter74 said:
Why should we care if the PA's average salary drops from $1.8 to $1.3mil per year?
How many of you will make that much money in your life time??
Why b/c they risk getting hurt?
People get into car accidents all the time and end up being disabled for life but you will hardly ever see settlemts like that, especially in Canada.

Why are the players entitled to make more money than the industry can afford?

I think 54% of the industries revenue going to the players big fat pocket is very fair imho.

You only think 54% is a fair number because Gary said so, but that's crap. I certainly don't care if the avg salary is $1.3 million, in fact the union even offered up a proposal that would drop it to about $1.3 million months ago. Seems all the player haters are the ones that care what the average salary is and cry bloody murder because it's more than they make.

The players aren't entitled to make more than the industry can afford. They want the industry to pay them what they can afford through the whole age old supply and demand / smart business decision making science that seems to have deserted the billionaire owners, who decided to pay the players more than they could afford.

But now there's already a cap and a bunch of other restrictions on the table. We're no longer living in a world where salaries will "spiral out of control". A world where teams couldn't possibly lose money. The owners would make like bandits if they took the deal on the table and/or stopped being stupid and incompetent. But no, they want more more more.

Time and time again though, it's the millionaire players who are greedy, while the billionaire owners are saints. Awful.
 

LordHelmet

Registered User
May 19, 2004
956
0
Twin Cities
Tawnos said:
I'm pretty sure that the owners problem is not with the floor itself, but rather the range between the floor and the ceiling. They don't want $20million seperating the highest payroll from the lowest.

They also don't want this range to be based on the last set of revenues that the league had. I guess they want to come up with some arbitrary number.
The players didn't want a tax, they didn't want a cap, and they didn't want linkage. They've given in on those things. Isn't it about time that the owners gave in on something?
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
EndBoards said:
The players didn't want a tax, they didn't want a cap, and they didn't want linkage. They've given in on those things. Isn't it about time that the owners gave in on something?
The did give in ...

Just yesterday alone they gave in on not using replacement players, not opening the season on time with no CBA, and the BOG game up their time to fly to NY for a meeting ..


Jeez .. just no pleasing some people ..;)
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
yes

DR said:
actually, its more like this

fans spend: $2.4billion
owners spend: 300m

the owners dont spend 2.4billion of their own money, it comes from the fans.

Why should we care if these guys spend 300m on toys. Especially when you look at it from the point of view they could have agreed to something already and reduced that loss to an immediate profit.

The have won the war, it has been won since 2004, they are now being greedy if they are holding out for more than a hard cap and linkage.

dr

They are very aware that the money comes from the fans....

thats why there is a lockout.

The owners are doing the fans will.

If the fans were willing to spend the extra money to keep their pet players in the way they have become accustomed, there wouldnt be a lockout.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
AM said:
They are very aware that the money comes from the fans....

thats why there is a lockout.

The owners are doing the fans will.

If the fans were willing to spend the extra money to keep their pet players in the way they have become accustomed, there wouldnt be a lockout.

Huh? It was the fans who wanted to go a whole year without hockey so the owners could make more money? You've got to be kidding. The owners are doing the owners' will. If you think ticket prices will drop for any reason other than decreased demand, you're kidding yourself.
 

Crazy_Ike

Cookin' with fire.
Mar 29, 2005
9,081
0
gc2005 said:
Huh? It was the fans who wanted to go a whole year without hockey so the owners could make more money? You've got to be kidding. The owners are doing the owners' will. If you think ticket prices will drop for any reason other than decreased demand, you're kidding yourself.

When are you going to finally understand that the owners aren't making money at all? Some are, some aren't, the net is a loss, and a significant one.

So yeah THIS fan would rather go a whole year without hockey so the Calgary and Edmontons of the world don't have to pay player prices set by the Leafs and the Rangers.

Unlike you, I actually want to see the Flames and Oilers survive. The Flames only managed to break even by going right to the finals with a roster half full of AHLers, and the Oilers shed contracts every year just to stay afloat. And according to goofballs like you, this must mean they're bad hockey markets.

Yeah.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->